This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. To start a discussion of
this book, you can use the
Discussion form on the LINGUIST List website. For
the subject of the discussion, specify "Book Review" and the issue number of
this review. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for
the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and
follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the
book review staff directly.

SUMMARY Parentheticals, as a (more or less) unified class of language structures, have received relatively sparse attention in the linguistic literature, often being treated as peripheral phenomena or as instances of speech disfluency. Nevertheless, the fact that these elements occupy space in the surface syntax coupled with their variable contributions to the overall interpretation of the particular host utterance are issues that warrant further linguistic investigation. The contributions in this volume, edited by Nicole Dehé and Yordanka Kavalova, were first presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenshaft (DGfS) in a workshop on Parenthetical Constructions. This collection of analyses serves as an initial response to the need for further research concerning the class of parentheticals. The cumulative effect of these papers is a comprehensive overview of the type and scope of the issues pertaining to the proper treatment of parenthetical constructions.

Though a rather large portion of the contributions in this volume focuses on issues of syntactic and semantic interest, a number of other linguistic disciplines are addressed as well. In general, the various authors offer perspectives that should appeal to a wide audience of scholars. Moreover, the blend of functionalist and formalist approaches allows the volume to move between different theoretical platforms achieving the overall objective of offering a general vision of the questions raised by this class of structures. While the formalisms in both the syntactic and prosodic analyses are minimal, a functional knowledge of current systems of formal linguistic representation is helpful.

To initiate the volume, Dehé and Kavalova provide a concise introduction to the class of parenthetical constructions. Their description of parentheticals as a ''motley crew'' foreshadows the vein of discussion concerning membership in this set of elements that is continued to some degree throughout each of the chapters (''Parentheticals: An Introduction'', 1). Indeed, the question of what constitutes a parenthetical construction is critical, given the multitude of candidate constructions (e.g. anacolutha, discourse markers, and tag questions) that display different degrees of functional overlap with this class of elements. This introduction functions as a primer for the reader by raising questions that will be answered in subsequent chapters and by introducing some of the literature relevant to the study of parenthetical constructions. Most importantly, the inventory of evaluative criteria referenced throughout the volume is examined. With this set of constructions, the consensus seems to be that independence from the host utterance can be observed in both the syntactic detachment and the prosodic non-integration, though both are called into question at various points in the subsequent analyses.

The paper by Gunther Kaltenböck is the first in the section titled ''Syntax and It's Interfaces''. After introducing the somewhat paradoxical behavior of parenthetical clauses, i.e. that they are both a part of and not a part of the syntax of the host utterance, Kaltenböck develops a classification schema intended to delimit group membership in this diverse set of elements. The criteria proposed are all related to the syntactic behavior of parentheticals, though Kaltenböck admits that there are other features (e.g. functional-pragmatic) that may also be employed in describing this class of structures. Inclusion of a particular structure in the list of parenthetical clauses requires (i) that it be clausal, excluding adverbial phrases as in ''Frankly, I don't know what to say about this'' (example 1L:30); (ii) that it be syntactically independent from the host clause; and finally (iii) that the position of the candidate structure in the linear string be flexible enough to allow for initial, medial, and final positions. Kaltenböck concludes his analysis by discussing a few borderline cases (e.g. discourse markers), settling in the end on a set of ''core'' members of this class which include reduced parenthetical clauses (''Britons-he said-could compete and win'', example 25b:41), self-contained parentheticals (''Mary-I hate to tell you this-is coming over to visit'', example 20a:40), and some adverbial parentheticals (''As you probably know, I won't be here next week'', example 1G:30).

The following three chapters are all dedicated to parenthetical constructions in German. Markus Steinback describes the group of German verb-first integrated parentheticals (VIPs) (e.g. ''Martin möchte-glaubt Hans-das Theorem beweisen'' 'Hans thinks Martin wants to prove the theorem', example 1a:54), noting several features that distinguish this class of structures from other parenthicals. First, VIPs display an increased level of integration with their host clauses. Second, VIPs share a number of properties with matrix clauses that select V2-complements. Steinback provides an overview of questions related to these constructions, focusing specifically on accounting for the licensing of the propositional argument of VIP predicates and the semantic and pragmatic relation(s) between VIPs and their hosts. Three different VIPs are proposed based on the selectional restrictions of the VIP predicate and how the host clause satisfies these restrictions. These VIPs are described as follows: interrogative glauben-VIPs, declarative glauben-VIPs, and interrogative fragen-VIPs. Moreover, Steinback argues for a type of mutual dependency between the VIP and the host clause that is sensitive to the nature of the semantic relationship of the former to the latter (i.e. either as an argument of the VIP-predicate or a restrictor).

The behavior of propositional arguments with verbs in reduced parenthetical constructions (RPCs) is the focus of Christian Fortmann's contribution. Thus, in an example like ''Theo kam-sagt Paul-mit seinem Hund'' 'Theo brought-Paul says-his dog' (example 1a:90), Fortmann notes that, despite having predicates which are subcategorized for clausal complements (e.g. sagt 'say'), there is no overt constituent in RPCs that saturates this propositional argument. Fortmann considers three possible analyses for explaining how these complements can remain unexpressed but dismisses two of these proposals (i.e. unexpressed arguments as either implicit arguments or traces of a moved constituent) because of a various empirical problems. Instead, he develops a solution in which the unexpressed argument of an RPC is represented by an empty pronominal category linked to the host utterance. Fortmann finds evidence for his claim in the observation that non-reduced versions of RPCs can be derived via insertion of an overt pronoun-e.g. ''Theo kam-Paul sagt es-mit seinem Hund'' 'Theo brought-Paul says-his dog' (example 15a:99), where es 'it' refers to the propositional content of the host. The remainder of Fortmann's analysis is devoted to discussing some of the implications of his claims and to extending the analysis to so 'so' and wie 'as' parentheticals as well.

The paper by Tanja Kiziak discusses constructions of the type shown in the following example: ''Wen denskst du hat Wolfgang angerufen?'' 'When do you think Wolfgang has called?' (example 1:121). In light of the fact that German allows for null complementizers, these examples can be analyzed either as long wh-movement from a V2-clause or as parenthetical insertion. Kiziak opts for the parenthetical analysis noting further (following Reis 1995) that certain types of predicates are not accepted in parenthetical constructions though they do occur in long extraction (e.g. preference, strong factive, and negated predicates). To test these claims, Kiziak conducted a series of web-based experiments designed to elicit numerical grammaticality judgments, which were then normalized using the magnitude estimation technique (Bard, Robertson, and Sorace 1996). The results suggest that the complementizer-less constructions (i.e. the ''controversial'' constructions according to Kiziak) are judged to be better with predicates of thought and speech while examples with the overt complementizer ''dass'' are preferred with adjectival and negative predicates. This set of experimental data provides compelling evidence that the controversial constructions are best treated as cases of parenthetical insertion rather than extraction.

Yordanka Kavalova begins her discussion of and-parentheticals by noting that the location of these elements in the syntactic string is not motivated by any particular syntactic process. She then proposes a typology of and-parentheticals, distinguishing between anchored and floating parentheticals following the criterion of proximity to a particular element in the host utterance. After differentiating between and-parentheticals and canonical coordination, Kavalova evaluates two of the prevailing syntactic analyses of the connection between parenthetical constructions and host utterances (i.e. the ''integrated'' vs. the ''unintegrated'' approaches) and opts instead to adopt an insertion theory (see Ackema and Neeleman 2004), which argues that while the material in a parenthetical inserted at a nonterminal node is associated with the host clause, this relation does not hold in the opposite direction (i.e. the host material is not associated with the parenthetical) . She concludes the analysis with a discussion of certain pragmatic issues, arguing that speakers make use of and-parentheticals to facilitate processing and to achieve optimal relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1995).

Rounding out the syntax portion of the volume are two papers focusing on formal syntactic and semantic aspects of the treatment of parentheticals. Francesca Del Gobbo addresses some distinctions between appositive relative clauses (e.g. ''The new professor, who was late, came to the party with Mary'', example 2:174) and restrictive relative clauses (e.g. ''The professor that we invited came to the party'', example 6:174) observing that while either can modify a definite description (or a ''specific nominal''), the two constructions display divergent patterns of acceptability when modifying proper names and quantified NPs. An appositive relative, being more akin to the class of parentheticals than restrictive relatives, can modify proper names but not quantified NPs; the inverse is true for restrictive relatives. To explain these data, Del Gobbo proposes an E-type account of the pronouns in appositive relatives (see also Sells 1985 and Demirdache 1991) with obligatory co-indexation with the head of the relative clause, which is argued not to be the case with restrictive relatives. She further distinguishes appositive relatives from restrictive relatives by arguing that the former should be treated semantically as denoting propositions and the latter as denoting properties.

Mark de Vries picks up the issue of explaining how a parenthetical construction can be part of the linear structure of a host sentence without being syntactically integrated. De Vries prefaces his analysis with a distinction between types of paratactic structures arguing that parentheticals, as opposed to other cases of parataxis such as coordination and apposition, demonstrate relatively independent intonation and the absence of a separate licensing agent (i.e. an ''anchor''). Next, the notion of Invisibility is introduced as a means of describing structural independence in the absence of c-command. De Vries walks through the description a number of predictions that follow from his notion of Invisibility, including the inability to move elements from the paratactic phrase to the host and the impossibility of licensing a negative polarity item in the paratactic phrase via some element in the host (in addition to several other predications related to the binding phenomena). Following his analysis of these data, de Vries argues for an extension of the notion of structural inclusion in Minimalist syntax, further describing the implications of such an addition for the types Merge available in this paradigm. Under these new assumptions, Invisibility is described simply as an application of a type of Merge (specifically, b-Merge) that applies only in cases of parataxis.

Over the next three papers, the volume switches gears from the early discussion of syntactic issues related to parentheticals. First, Stefan Schneider offers a broad overview of reduced parenthetical constructions (RPCs) in French, Italian, and Spanish (e.g. French: ''Ca faisait partie de ces-disons donnés'' 'That was part of these, let's say, cultural data' example 1:238) focused specifically on developing a pragmatic typology of these constructions. After an initial characterization of RPCs, Schneider presents the results of a corpus survey and proposes several classificatory conditions that include the presence of a finite verb in the parenthetical construction, the lack of overt syntactic link between the RPC and the host, and occurrence of the RPC in both medial and final positions. Next, Scheider summarizes the corpus tokens by describing their pragmatic function. For instance, many RPCs are used as mitigating devices while others are employed as a means of expressing reported speech or emphasis. Proceeding from these observations, Schneider analyzes the types of attested mitigating RPCs while also offering a description of their syntactic position with respect to the host utterance.

The final two papers are devoted specifically to questions of prosodic interest related to the study of parenthetical constructions. Drawing from a corpus of spoken British English, Nicole Dehé initiates the dialogue concerning intonational independence as a defining criterion for inclusion in the set of parentheticals. She situates the discussion initially within the ongoing distinction made between syntactic and prosodic parenthesis, noting that the treatment of parentheticals as adjuncts is often taken to entail certain prosodic properties, namely the mapping of these structures onto intonational units distinct from those of the host utterance. Parentheticals meeting both the syntactic criterion of adjunction and the prosodic requirement of an independent intonational frame are labeled as ''prototypical parentheticals'' in Dehé's analysis. She explains, however, that parentheticals display a variety of prosodic behaviors, one of which involves some degree of prosodic integration into the host utterance despite having a distinct intonation contour (i.e. ''integrated parentheticals''). Finally, there are still other constructions that do not display any of the typical prosodic patterns found with prototypical or integrated parentheticals, although, syntactically, they are ''clearly parenthetical in nature'' (279). Dehé concludes her analysis with a discussion of the implications for general prosodic phonology, noting that it may not always be the case that syntactic boundaries correspond to prosodic ones.

Sandra Döring provides the final paper in the volume, following the prosodic thread of the discussion concerning parentheticals. Her analysis looks at the prosodic features of parenthetical constructions taken from a corpus of political debates held in the German House of Parliament. Among the features that are observed are intensity, articulation rate, pauses, and prosodic contours. Using these features as a point of comparison, Döring discusses how parentheticals are prosodically distinct from their host utterances and offers a variety of evidence to indicate that points of transition between a parenthetical and its anchor clause are often accompanied by changes in one or more specific prosodic features. For instance, according to Döring's results, the fundamental frequency of a parenthetical construction tends to be lower than that of its surrounding host utterance. Careful analysis of a battery of other features demonstrates that parentheticals do indeed display their own intonation contours and that this behavior is best displayed in observing the transitions between the host clause and the parenthetical.

EVALUATION Overall, this volume presents a significant contribution to the study of a set of constructions that are in general treated as only marginal to our understanding of ''core'' linguistic issues. The predominant topic of discussion throughout the book is how to situate the primary and somewhat contradictory observation about parenthetical constructions - i.e. that they display syntactic and prosodic independence but are still required to be ''integrated'' into the linear string of elements. This observation is clearly and consistently echoed throughout the span of analyses as each author situates his or her individual proposal with respect to what is popularly assumed about this class of elements. The greater contribution of the volume, however, is the range and quality of discussion concerning those cases in which the assumptions of syntactic and prosodic independence are called into question. That is, the papers in this volume have instigated a dialogue concerning the means by which (semi-)independent elements are associated structurally with other elements and how the nature and type of this association bears on the process of interpretation. Each individual article provides a distinct and compelling argument for how and, perhaps more importantly, why parenthetical constructions must be treated in line with other topics of syntactic and prosodic interest, arguing that the simple claim of parentheticals as adjuncts does not account for the wealth of, for example, licensing phenomena that occur between parentheticals and host utterances. Clearly, there is something more to this class of elements that goes beyond the mere and misleading claim that they are speech disfluencies not associated in any discernable way with the strings of elements in which they appear.

Among all of the positive advances presented in this research, this volume poses two possible shortcomings related to its breadth of coverage. As is clear in the preceding description of articles, the largest portion of the book is dedicated to exploring syntactic aspects of parenthetical expressions. Topics of pragmatic and prosodic interest, not to mention other possible areas, are provided only minimal airtime creating a somewhat lop-sided view of the range of issues that remain to be addressed with these elements. There are several reasonable responses to this first critique, the first being that the scope of the volume was dictated largely by the range of papers presented at the original workshop on parenthetical constructions. A second reply may include the recognition that the process of initiating further discussion of this set of elements is best served by addressing the most pressing theoretical concerns, specifically those related to structure and interpretation. In light of this view, restriction to the topic of syntax provides only a rallying point for what has become and will continue to be a fruitful area of research.

One other possible shortcoming concerns the range of languages addressed. Again, while this can, to some degree, be attributed to the languages of interest represented by the papers in the original workshop, there are a number of issues raised by the various syntactic and prosodic claims that would benefit from the type of coverage that a cross-linguistic approach can offer. One such issue might be whether or not parenthetical constructions, as a class, are in fact common and attested cross-linguistically. If so, is it possible to identify a set of core features (e.g. syntactic and prosodic independence) that allows for cross-linguistic, classificatory consistency? A more thorough treatment of parentheticals in a wider selection of languages offers an ideal opportunity to extend and refine the proposals presented in this volume.

As a coherent collection of analyses, this book accomplishes the goal of providing the reader with a state-of-art look at topics germane to the discussion of parentheticals. The one-word title of the book, which appropriately eschews a restrictive subtitle, is an apt description of the explanatory mission of the volume.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER Dr. Howe is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance Languages and the Linguistics Program at the University of Georgia. His interests include morphosyntactic variation in the Romance languages and theories of semantic change.